Israel Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon on Monday made clear that he believes that any Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program should be only be considered as a last resort, the latest signal that Israel is moving closer to the United States’ views on how to handle Iran.

Yaalon’s proclamation came during U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s visit to the Middle East this weekend, including his first visit to Israel since his conformation. Hagel traveled to the region in part to finalize an arms deal worth $10 billion, split between the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Speaking to reporters, Hagel said, “I don’t think there’s any question that [the deal is] another very clear signal to Iran.”

Yaalon agreed with the Obama administration’s policy that the “military option” remains on the table for confronting Iran, saying “one way or another Iran’s nuclear program will be stopped.” He also emphasized, however, the importance of such a move only coming should all others fail:

“We believe that the military option, which is well discussed, should be the last resort,” Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon told reporters at a news conference with Hagel.

“And there are other tools to be used and to be exhausted,” Yaalon said, listing diplomacy, economic sanctions and “moral support” for domestic opponents of Iran’s hardline Islamist leadership.

In a profile published at the time of his appointment, Reuters highlighted Yaalon’s preference for Israel to follow a cautious approach when determining how to handle Iran, a stance he appears to have brought with him into the Defense Ministry. Yaalon was also listed among the members of Netanyahu’s previous cabinet opposed to launching strikes on Iran in 2011, according to Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

Yaalon’s appointment as Defense Minister, given his previous positions on Iran, highlights the shift in Israeli rhetoric in recent months. Following Netanyahu’s so-called “Red Line” speech at the United Nations in October, the drumbeats for war have receded at least slightly. Israeli officials, particularly Netanyahu, have cooled their rhetoric due, in part it seems, to Iran’s continued conversion of its enriched uranium into a form harder to enrich further. But also, as his most recent trip to Israel showed, President Obama has largely succeeded in moving Netanyahu closer to his thinking on Iran since October. “I think there was a policy shift from Netanyahu,” CAP’s Matt Duss said on MSNBC last month, adding that “it’s Netanyahu really climbing down” to Obama’s position.

As Yaalon indicated, all options regarding Iran have yet to be exhausted. Iran on Monday announced it is seeking a new round of talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency over its nuclear program, tentatively scheduled to take place in May. A recent report from The Iran Project also emphasized that there is much the international community can still do to engage Iran diplomatically to end the stand-off over its nuclear program.

Secretary of State John Kerry believes that time is running out for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with at most two years before it is no longer possible.

During a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday, Ranking Member Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) asked the Secretary about President Obama’s recent trip to Israel and the West Bank, inquiring about the stalled peace process. Kerry’s response highlighted the urgency with which the administration views restarting talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders:

KERRY: But I can guarantee you that am committed to this, because I believe the window for a two-state solution is shutting. I think we have some period of time a year, a year and a half, to two years or its over. [...] So there’s an urgency to this in my mind, and I intend, on behalf of the President’s instructions, to honor that urgency and see what we can do to move forward.

Later in the hearing, Rep. Ted Deutch (R-FL) followed up on Engel’s earlier question, placing the onus of restarting negotiations solely on the Palestinians. Deutch specifically asked why Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had not done more to “prepare his people for peace,” lamenting Palestinian preconditions on negotiations — like demanding Israel end its illegal settlement construction — and its push for statehood recognition at the United Nations.

“Look, the hurdle we have to get over here, part of the difficulty is the level of mistrust on both sides is gigantic,” Kerry responded. “President Abbas deep-down is not convinced — and that may be a light word for it — that Prime Minister Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and Israel are ever going to give them a state. And on the other side, Israel is not convinced that the Palestinians and others ever going to give them the security that they need. So we have to find an equation here, folks, where we can try to dispel those years of mistrust and get both sides to understand that both things are in fact possible.”

While President Clinton laid the groundwork, U.S. support for the two-state solution has been official policy since 2002, when President George W. Bush announced his desire to see an independent Israel and Palestine living side-by-side. Since then, the peace process has moved forward in fits and starts before and stalled in 2010. While a report from CAP in 2009 also implied that the window of opportunity is closing, this is the first time a Secretary of State has been so blunt in producing a narrow timeframe. Secretary Kerry recently returned from his third trip to the Middle East in the latest round of shuttle diplomacy intended to jump-start direct negotiations between both sides.

As CAP’s Matt Duss notes, however, in the absence of direct talks, there are several options the United States could pursue in the meantime to help lay the ground for a lasting peace. And while the political process has yet to move forward, the U.S. did win agreement from Netanyahu and Abbas to help boost economic development in the West Bank. Kerry, in response to questions from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lesthein (R-FL), made clear that the economic process is meant to move forward along side the political track, not as a replacement.

A Senate resolution that some believed obligated that the U.S. militarily support an Israeli attack on Iran has now been refined in committee, toning down Congress’s more militaristic approach to the Iranian nuclear program — for now.

In the original phrasing of the draft resolution, as reported by ThinkProgress, the language was vague enough to allow for almost any Israeli use of force against Iran to be immediately and without question backed by the United States with “diplomatic, military, and economic support.” On Tuesday, Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Bob Corker (R-TN) — the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee respectively — won unanimous approval of an amendment to S. Res. 65 that significantly diluted that language.

In the most important section of the resolution — the section previously stating that U.S. policy would be to support Israel in near any strike against Iran — language was added making clear that the U.S. itself must be the sole determinant for when force is used:

Urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence;

The insertion of the word “legitimate” into the clause on self-defense helps narrow the possibility that the measure could be seen as implicitly approving a preventative or pre-emptive Israeli attack on Iran. Instead, while the decision to attack would remain Israel’s, the U.S. would decide whether a strike meets its own standard for legitimacy. This is important as, while the resolution was never intended to substitute an actual declaration of war from Congress nor an Authorization of the Use of Military Force as seen prior to launching Iraq War, it will serve as an official statement on U.S. policy.

When Menendez and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) first introduced the non-binding measure in February, it was with the intent that the full Senate vote on it before President Obama’s trip to Israel. Instead, it was met with criticism in the form of pressure from pro-peace groups and even a scathing New York Times editorial lamenting how Congress “gets in the way” of a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.

“This new language is the kind of language that should have been in the first version,” Joel Rubin, Director of Policy at the Ploughshares Fund, said about the amendment. “Fortunately the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chose to mark it up, which is relatively rare for this type of resolution, and chose to do it in a way that sharpened up the concerning clause.”

“Americans for Peace Now welcomes amendments made by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to temper [the] problematic Iran-war resolution,” the group said in a statement on Tuesday, adding that Corker and Mendendez “deserve credit for dealing seriously and substantively” with concerns about the measure.

The two senators’ offices did not respond to ThinkProgress’ requests for comment about the senators decision to make changes to the resolution’s language.

The amendment doesn’t, however, completely close the door to the future Congressional authorization of war against Iran. Graham, in explaining his thinking behind the original draft of the resolution, readily admitted that it was designed to be part of a “step-by-step” process towards authorizing war against Iran. The Obama administration has still not ruled out the use of force against Iran if deemed necessary to prevent its acquisition of a nuclear weapon, that would only be after the exhaustion of all other available tools.

President Obama told an audience of Israeli university students, in what is being hailed as a historic speech, that if they want see peace with the Palestinians, they must put more pressure on the Israeli government to act.

While Obama reiterated that Israeli settlement activity “is counterproductive to the cause of peace,” he acknowledged that Israel “has taken risks for peace.”

“You made credible proposals to the Palestinians at Annapolis. You withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon, and then faced terror and rockets,” Obama said, adding, “Across the region, you have extended a hand of friendship, and too often have been confronted with the ugly reality of anti-Semitism.”

But he said that ultimately, achieving peace will mean that they must urge their leaders to move forward to take the risks necessary to achieve an agreement. “You must create the change that you want to see,” he said:

OBAMA: That is where peace begins – not just in the plans of leaders, but in the hearts of people; not just in a carefully designed process, but in the daily connections, that sense of empathy, that takes place among those who live together in this land, and in this sacred city of Jerusalem. And let me say this as a politician, I can promise you this: political leaders will never take risks if the people do not push them to take some risks. You must create the change that you want to see. Ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things.

Watch the clip:

Indeed, as CAP’s Rudy deLeon, Brian Katulis and Matt Duss observed recently, based on conversations with officials and experts from the Israeli government and Palestinian Authority, “There are few political incentives to tackle the Palestinian issue”:

There is little sense of urgency in Israel about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict beyond continued concerns about possible security threats from the Gaza Strip. Israelis seem resigned to the status quo and lack a clear sense of the next possible steps forward. Even among those Israelis who express more concern about the need for a two-state solution to the conflict, there is little clarity about the pathway forward to advance that agenda.

They recommend that Secretary of State Kerry “embark on an active process of listening to both Israelis and Palestinians, quietly encouraging both sides to take steps that build trust and public support for the eventual restart of negotiations in the coming year.”

(Photo: AP)

Transcript from Obama’s speech:

Read more

John Bolton — a self-appointed supposed strong supporter of Israel — accused the Israeli government on Tuesday of lying in expressing its support for President Obama.

The Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. produced a video welcoming Obama on his visit this week to the Jewish state. The unusual video depicts cartoon-like versions of the president and Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu shaking hands to the tune of the “Golden Girls” theme song “Thank You For Being A Friend.”

Fox News host Greta Van Susteren wondered why then, if things were so bad between Obama and Israel, that the Israelis would make such a video. Bolton could think of only one answer: It’s propaganda:

VAN SUSTEREN: The Obama administration saying the president’s trip is mostly a fence mending mission, but it looks like [referring tot he video] the Israelis are welcoming him with open arms. Ambassador, what do you think about this?

BOLTON: I’m glad the Israeli government has enough budget surplus that they can produce propaganda like that. The president has Israel back, the bonds are strong. What could possibly go wrong?

Watch the clip:

Israeli President Shimon Peres will give Obama the Presidential Medal of Distinction during his trip to Israel this week. As Bolton would have it, that’s probably a bogus gesture as well.

But the former Bush administration U.N. ambassador is a regular in the Obama-hates-Israel circuit, the presumption being of course that Bolton is more friendly to the Jewish state than Obama is. But apparently that friendship doesn’t go too far as there’s nothing like having a good buddy who calls you a liar on national television.

President Barack Obama’s trip to Israel and the West Bank — his first during his time in the White House — will draw attention to a peace process that is currently going nowhere.

CAP’s Matthew Duss, who is currently in the region, is concerned that despite calls on all side for a new round of talks between Israel and Palestine, direct negotiations may wind up being counter-productive:

While the Obama administration and its partners in the Quartet on the Middle East—the group made up of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, and Russia, established in 2002—have stressed the importance of returning to direct talks over the past few years, some analysts I spoke with suggested that this may not be a good option at the moment. Given the level of frustration among Palestinians at their own government’s failure to deliver, it’s possible that the Palestinian Authority could not survive another round of failed negotiations.

In the near-term absence of further negotiations, Duss recommended the United States working quietly to address key issues to boost the Palestinian Authority’s credibility, including Palestinian prisoners in Israel and the on-going construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. “It’s very important, however, that the Palestinian Authority not be supported simply with the aim of prolonging an unsustainable status quo,” Duss warns, noting the necessity of a permanent solution.

The last direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority last took place in 2010, with the declared goal of developing a framework for an agreement within a year. The talks fell apart in late Sept. 2010, when Israel’s partial moratorium of new settlement construction expired.

President Obama’s trip to Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan will start next Wednesday and last until Saturday. While he is not expected to make any major policy announcements while there, his very presence is thought as an assist in revitalizing the peace process. According to Israel’s Channel 2, Secretary of State John Kerry will make a return trip to the region soon after Obama’s as part of a more substantive effort.

In a bid to lend a patina of “bipartisanship” to its ideas, the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has made former Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) the co-chair of its newest foreign policy initiative. The move has been met with raised eyebrows, as progressives have not considered Joe Lieberman an authentic representative of their foreign policy positions for quite some time, if they ever did in the first place.

Lieberman will co-chair the new “American Internationalism Project” with former Senator John Kyl (R-AZ). As the project is intended to “rebuild and reshape a bipartisan consensus around American global leadership and engagement,” Lieberman’s participation is aimed at blunting the perception that anything coming out of AEI is a dogmatically Republican plan. AEI generally hews to a hardline neoconservative standard on foreign policy; its staff in the area includes former Bush Administration officials John Bolton, Richard Perle, and Marc Thiessen.

Lieberman’s dogged support for George W. Bush’s foreign policy played a critical role in his in 2006 Democratic primary defeat (he subsequently won as an independent). endorsed arch-hawk John McCain over Barack Obama for President in 2008 on grounds that McCain was “the strongest candidate on security of all the candidates running.” Indeed, Lieberman’s views are far closer to AEI’s than they are to the progressive mainstream, as a quick survey of his particular positions will show:

1. Iraq. Lieberman himself credits his vociferous support for the Iraq War for making him “persona non grata with the Democrats.” As recently as 2011, Lieberman defended his vote to invade Iraq, saying “I believe that the evidence is very clear that [Saddam] was developing weapons of mass destruction.” During the height of the war debate in 2007, Lieberman accused war critics of committing “a kind of harassment” and being “invested in a narrative of retreat and defeat.”

2. Torture. Lieberman voted against legislation banning waterboarding in 2008 on grounds that it wasn’t torture. Because the torture technique “has a mostly psychological impact on people,” Lieberman argued, “we ought to be able to use [it],” adding that President Obama’s decision to release the Bush torture memos “help[ed] our enemies.” Though he once signed a letter that included a clause condemning waterboarding, it is unclear how he reconciled that with his long record of support for the practice.

3. Iran. When asked point-blank if he was endorsing an attack on Iran during a 2007 interview, Lieberman said “I am… We’ve got to use our force and to me that would include taking military action.” More recently, he has said a strike on Iran is highly likely, and that, in its aftermath, we should “hope and pray that there will be a regime change.”

4. Israel. Though Israeli leaders have praised Obama’s policy towards their country (even awarding him a prestigious medal), Lieberman has been persistent critic of the President’s policy — from the right. Lieberman denied that settlements were “a major impediment to peace” and suggested that Obama’s foreign policy “has encouraged Israel’s enemies.”

And it’s not just national security policy – Lieberman has tacked to the right on a variety of domestic policy issues as well, ranging from tax cuts to health care to energy.

Vice President Joe Biden stressed diplomacy with Iran before the 2013 AIPAC Policy Conference while defending President Obama’s resolve in confronting Iran’s nuclear program.

Referring to reported difficulties in the working relationship between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Biden countered that all U.S. Presidents have had points of divergence with Israel’s leaders. “We’ve always disagreed on tactics,” Biden said. “But we’ve always agreed on the strategic imperative that Israel be able to defend itself.”

Turning to Iran’s nuclear program, Biden sought to make clear to the gathering President Obama’s willingness to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. “Big nations can’t bluff [about using force]. And Presidents of the United States cannot and do not bluff. President Barack Obama is not bluffing,” Biden confirmed. “We’re not looking for war,” Biden continued, before repeating an oft-delivered line, telling the crowd that “all options, including military force” remain on the table.

As Biden explained to the audience, however, despite that resolve, the United States is ready and willing to negotiate peacefully. “Our strong preference, the world’s preference is for a diplomatic solution,” Biden said. He also echoed recent comments from Secretary of State John Kerry that the window for making a deal with Iran is closing, but there is still time and space to find a solution. Biden emphasized that diplomacy had to be fully exhausted before any military option could be exercised:

BIDEN: And I want to make clear to you something. God forbid, if the need to act occurs it is critically important for the whole world to know we did everything in our power, we did everything that reasonably could have be expected to avoid any confrontation. That matters. Because, God forbid, if we have to act, its important that the rest of the world is with us. We have a united international community.

Watch Biden’s comments on diplomacy here:

As part of the bid to find a diplomatic solution, a coalition of international powers — including Russia and China — concluded a round of positive talks with Iran last week, with technical meetings set to take place in March. Multiple current and former Israeli and U.S. officials have warned of the fallout of a premature attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, including a rupturing of the international community’s unity on the Iranian nuclear issue.

Members of Congress have been intensifying their Iran-war rhetoric in recent days. For example, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) are planning to introduce a resolution that urges the United States government to support Israel — militarily, economically and diplomatically — should the Jewish state be “compelled to take military action” against Iran.

While it appears that Congress, still struggling to shake the neocons’ influence, tends to favor a more militaristic approach toward the Islamic Republic, the Obama administration has focused on a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis, while pledging to take no options off the table and also warning about what war with Iran would look like.

But given now the Graham-Menendez resolution, what do the Israelis think about war with Iran? It’s no secret the current Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu is the most vocal about pushing a military option with Iran, but over the past two years, numerous former and current high-level members of Israel’s security establishment have pushed back. Below is a compilation of those statements:

Read more

Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday said Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s comment that Zionism is “a crime against humanity” is “objectionable,” echoing the White House’s reaction today, saying his remarks are “offensive and wrong.”

Erdogan made the comments on Wednesday, speaking at a United Nations-sponored event meant to try to bridge the gap between Islam and the West. Instead, Erdogan managed to widen the divide:

“We should be striving to better understand the culture and beliefs of others, but instead we see that people act based on prejudice and exclude others and despise them,” Erdogan said, according to a simultaneous translation provided by the UN. “And that is why it is necessary that we must consider — just like Zionism or anti-Semitism or fascism — Islamophobia as a crime against humanity.”

“We not only disagree with it, we found it objectionable,” Kerry said during a press conference in Ankara with Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu. According to Reuters, Kerry said he personally raised the issue with Davutaglu and will do so with Erdogan.

“That said, Turkey and Israel are both vital allies of the United States and we want to see them work together in order to be able to go beyond the rhetoric and begin to take concrete steps to change this relationship,” Kerry added.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s office said it’s “unfortunate that such hurtful and divisive comments were uttered at a meeting being held under the theme of responsible leadership.”

CAP’s Matt Duss and Michael Werz also condemned Erdogan’s comments on Thursday. “While Prime Minister Erdogan’s outrageous comments seem intended to isolate Israel, they also threaten to further isolate Turkey,” they wrote, adding that his comments ” seemed like an attitude from a bygone era. Casting Zionism together with anti-Semitism, fascism, and Islamophobia in this way is not only deeply offensive but also quite historically inaccurate and has the potential to promote or justify violence.”